On 24 May, the European Union enacted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The legislation requires large businesses to identify and mitigate negative human rights and environmental impacts across their supply chains, regardless of where those impacts occur. It covers companies with more than 1,000 employees and a net worldwide turnover exceeding €450 million. EU member states have two years to incorporate the directive into national law.
French government support helped shape the CSDDD’s due diligence approach. The directive is designed to address human rights abuses, environmental degradation, and other ethical concerns across business operations, subsidiaries, and supply chains. It applies not only to EU-based firms but also extends to non-EU companies with significant operations within the bloc. The directive is positioned as a regulatory step for sectors including mining.
Scope limits: financial services, arms and surveillance technology
The CSDDD includes exclusions that were introduced as part of compromises to secure broad consensus. Financial institutions are excluded from the directive’s scope. Arms manufacturers are also excluded. Certain sensitive products, including surveillance technology, are likewise left out.
Africa-linked criticism has focused on the absence of financial-sector coverage. Financial flows connected to fossil fuel projects remain substantial in that context. The directive’s environmental focus aligns with climate goals, but its exclusion of financial institutions is described as limiting its reach for broader sustainability challenges.
Africa exposure through mining and fossil fuel investment
The directive’s implications for Africa are tied to the continent’s role in global supply chains. Africa is also described as vulnerable to environmental and social impacts associated with mining. The source material links increased interest in fossil fuel projects to global demand and geopolitical shifts. It also cites Europe’s energy strategy in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
In South Africa, Shell’s offshore gas exploration is cited as a contentious project with ongoing environmental concerns and legal challenges. Recent court decisions are referenced as highlighting flaws in due diligence processes. The issues mentioned include community consultation and environmental impacts. Similar due diligence problems are described as occurring across other African countries involved in resource extraction.
Consultation, jurisdiction and access to justice concerns
The development of the CSDDD is described as lacking sufficient consultation with Global South stakeholders. That gap raises questions about how the directive would apply in practice to local conditions. The source material also points to jurisdictional issues affecting enforcement. Access to justice is identified as a critical factor for affected communities seeking accountability from EU-based companies operating abroad.
Beyond the CSDDD itself, the source material highlights calls for broader international frameworks. It mentions a binding treaty on business and human rights as an example intended to ensure comprehensive regulation of global supply chains. African states are described as being urged to advocate for such standards in upcoming international negotiations. The emphasis is placed on equitable governance in the extraction and trade of critical minerals amid global economic shifts and climate imperatives.